Article from 1989: Experts Say Tyson would NOT Beat Joe Louis

Tyson blitzes him out the gate en route to an early stoppage.

 

Chins are best tested when something lands. Tyson's power is a step above Schemling or Marciano as a puncher, and judging on how many times Louis was floored or stunned, he's in trouble if Tyson catches him.

Louis the best boxer ever? Hardly. In fact he lost more rounds than won vs. Schemeling, Conn, Walcott and Charles. Would the best boxer ever really be in the minus column here? Louis wasn't hard to hit, and that us a problem vs Tyson.

For the pick. Tyson early or Louis late. Tyson aggression and stamina diminished around the 7th round, so if Louis is still in good condition after 7 rounds, I'd expect him to be the better in the 2nd half of the fight.

 

Nice to see you, Sangria.
It's always good to get your input. Yours and Ray Arcel's on the same thread. That's some something special.

 

I have always come down on the side of Louis here, but I recognize that the Tyson advocates have a point.

The case against Louis's chin gets vastly overstated, because the guy took some absolute bombs.

In Tyson however we finally have a finisher who might be able to capitalize on it.

 

You make it sound like Tyson beating Louis is an impossibility. That's a helluva lot of firepower to write off. Who would you say Louis beat that was as good as Tyson? Who did he ebat that was as explosive and dangerous?

 

One thing about Tyson, I would say he never possessed a "Great" jab.

 

Nothing's an impossibility at heavyweight, when both guys can bang.
But we have to go with what's most likely.

This guy looks quite explosive and dangerous :

This content is protected

 

Of course not.
Tyson was a destructive force early on and an early KO artist. He was always going forward seeking a KO.
Walcott was a pure boxer/puncher, with a completely different style and moved in all directions.
They are nothing alike, that's true.

But there's no denying Walcott could be seriously dangerous. It's not by accident he was knocking great boxers down or out.

I think prime for prime, Louis would have had an easier time with Walcott too. Louis lost a few steps during the war years, certainly. Whereas Walcott had a career renaissance and was active against top fighters.

The idea that Tyson beats a PRIME Louis in the EARLY rounds (which would be his ONLY chance, I think) seems unlikely to me.
I don't think Louis was as easy to put away as that, and he had a habit of being most dangerous when hurt, and was one of the smartest heavyweight boxers ever. He had a coolness about him. Unlike Tyson, who seemed like a ball of emotional energy.

Just my opinion. I think Louis breaks Tyson down, sooner or later. Catches him coming in, opens him up with the jab, outboxes and outpunches him.
I think Louis was more proven under adversity and used a more disciplined style.
I can't see Tyson upsetting him.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong with men like Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch and I can live with that.

 

Tyson had a flash knockdown, chest shot, against Holyfield in 1996 and was counted out within 5 against Danny Williams. Past prime..whatever but you used the terms "always" and "never" which isn't strictly true.

 

I'll keep this short and sweet. Experts are often wrong. But, maybe the reason why the experts think Louis beats Tyson, is because Louis probably beats Tyson. Over and out.

 

Louis is a better career fighter, but my opinion is Tyson catches Joe and Ko's him

 

" dozens upon dozens of his best right hands". Great observation.